Cheerskep: (Grumble, grumble) Alright. As much as I understand of physics
scientists' orientation to advancing knowledge, they search for observations
through varying methodologies . Psychologists search for methodologies to
elicit observations. In other words, in physics the methodology follows from
the observations, in psychology the observations follow from the
methodology.
And, again, if we're just dealing with persons learning (as opposed to the
scientific method) a child at the seashore observes first and understands
second.
Geoff C
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Science and Art
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:06:14 EST
Geoff -- I don't think you and I basically disagree. I was trying to
suggest
that activity most of us would be ready to call "science" always originates
with observations -- but there's variation in scientists' aims when they
start
"looking". In other words, they don't always have a hypothesis they are
trying
to confirm. Sometimes the astronomer "idly" scanning the skies, the
geologist
or zoologist in the field, and others, are just observing whatever comes
under
their eyes. If they are of a certain turn of mind, they can't help trying
to
"account for" what they see. A "pattern" may suggest a hypothesis, and
then
the more rigid, "controlled" observation rules of "scientific method" to
test
the hypothesis kick in. But one way or another, observations always come
first. Prior to every hypothesis there were observations -- even in
Einstein's
case.
**************
One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&
icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
